Australian PM’s recognition of Jerusalem hardly warrants the hysteria.

Who is really being irresponsible?

The negative responses to Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s recognition of Jerusalem reveals more about the agenda of the respondents than the substance of the policy.

The announcement by Prime Minister Scott Morrison that Australia now recognises that Israel’s capital is located in Jerusalem and not Tel Aviv was balanced, moderate and affirmed Australia’s long-standing support for a negotiated end to the conflict on the basis of two states for two peoples.

credit: My Jewish Learning.

In his remarks, the Prime Minister distinguished between the western parts of the city of Jerusalem, which fall within Israel’s sovereign and uncontested borders, and the eastern parts, which include the Old City and a mix of predominantly Arab and Jewish neighbourhoods lying within the city limits but beyond the 1949 Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Line ― known as the “Green Line.”

The western part of the city, where Israel’s government ministries, parliament and supreme court are all located, has since 1949 functioned as Israel’s seat of government, a fact now acknowledged by Australia. At no point in the history of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians has the status of the western parts of the city ever been raised, precisely because its status is not in dispute. Meanwhile, the territory lying beyond the Green Line is contested ― deeply so ― and the status of this area has since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 always been defined by Israel and the Palestinians as a “final status” issue to be resolved through direct negotiations between the parties.

The Prime Minister rightly did not seek to trespass on the future of east Jerusalem or prejudge the competing claims to it. Responding to a question from the floor following his announcement at the Sydney Institute, the Prime Minister placed the matter of defining what constitutes east Jerusalem, let alone what to do with it, outside the scope of the government’s policy. “Where East is,” the Prime Minister said, “is a matter for final status.”

Even though the announcement dealt only with the uncontested parts of the city, and expressly acknowledged the aspiration of the Palestinians to establish their capital within the eastern parts of Jerusalem, the reaction by the Palestinians produced a standard mix of boilerplate condemnations and Mafioso-style allusions to impending economic and physical harm. Far more interesting was the reaction elsewhere in the Arab world, which reflected the growing frustration with the Palestinian cause and an increasing independence of thought and policy on the question of engagement with Israel.

When the Arab League released a statement calling the announcement “blatantly biased towards the positions and policies of the Israeli occupation,” the Bahraini Foreign Minister shot back, criticising the Arab League statement as “mere rhetoric and irresponsible.” “Australia’s stance,” the Foreign Minister rightly noted, “does not impact the legitimate Palestinian demands.”

If the Bahraini Foreign Minister could coolly appraise the substance of the announcement and identify that it in fact affirmed Palestinian demands rather than traducing them, why then the “irresponsible” reaction of the Palestinians and their backers? The answer is to be found not in the substance of the announcement, but in the preamble to it.

In his introductory remarks, the Prime Minister denounced the “antisemitic agenda masquerading as defence of human rights”; he observed that the “ritual denunciations [of Israel]” stemming from this agenda “are getting in the way of progress [to end the conflict]”; and he declared that “Australia’s national interests are well served by our productive and increasingly diverse relationship with Israel.” The Prime Minister directly confronted the “ratcheting up of rhetoric and action aimed at isolating Israel” and the “bias and unfair targeting of Israel in the UN General Assembly.”

In a conflict so polarised, so ideologically magnetic, it is the clear affirmation of support for Israel, and the unmasking of those who seek the demise of the Jewish State, that was perhaps the most telling statement of all. The Prime Minister’s remarks dealt a clear blow to the strategy pursued by the Palestinians since the 1970s, articulated by Abu Iyad, the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s former head of security, in the following terms: “If one could succeed in changing public opinion in the Western world, then the overthrow of Zionism would be just a matter of time.” Prime Minister Morrison bluntly delivered the message that this strategy will not succeed.

The strategy was borne of a realisation that, following the failed invasions of Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973, the Jewish state had largely grown impervious to conventional military attack. Its downfall therefore could only be achieved through the long-game of chipping away at its legitimacy and undermining its ability to engage with the world around it: the resolution passed by the UN General Assembly in 1975, which determined Zionism ― the foundational movement of the State of Israel and the national liberation movement of the Jewish people ― to be “a form of racism”; the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign; and the seemingly permanent presence of anti-Israel resolutions on the agendas of some church synods in the West, trade union assemblies and party conventions, are all outgrowths of this strategy.

The aim is to keep Israel in focus, to associate it with the most heinous concepts imaginable ― from child-killing and organ harvesting to apartheid and ethnic cleansing ― and to gradually convince new generations of opinion leaders that this State is so far outside the bounds of decency and morality that it has to be dismantled. BDS activist and executive director of the Arab Resource and Organizing Center, Lara Kiswani, made the appeal directly: “Bringing down Israel will really benefit everyone in the world and everyone in society.”

The Bahraini Foreign Minister was able to look past the hysteria and comment on the merit of Prime Minister Morrison’s announcement because he serves a government that has slowly come to terms with Israel’s permanence and has grown weary of a destructive agenda that holds international forums captive, and that privileges the Palestinian cause above all others. His nation has come to see Israel as a key ally in the battle against Iranian regional malignancy, and a treasured source of innovation and technology that can help transform the economies of the Middle-East.

In this way, the responses to the Morrison announcement revealed far more about the agenda of the respondents than the actual policy being announced. It showed us who seeks an end to the impasse and a resumption of negotiations to finally end this conflict, and who merely favours a perpetuation of war by other means.

11 comments

Surely, by this declaration Australia has signalled its premature decision to declare so-called East Jerusalem as the capital of some yet to be agreed upon Palestinian state whose identity is predicated entirely upon the destruction of the Jewish State?

Why on earth would the PLO/PA agree to sit around the negotiating table with Israel when, citing two-state solution ideologies ad infinitum, players like Australia give the butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-their-mouths belligerents precisely what they want: No peace, no talks, and no inducement to recognise Israel whatsoever?

Yet, this mantra of a “two state solution” , as “suggested” by our own Scomo, is not TIME conditioned, but PRINCIPLED conditioned.
The Australian fair and intelligent position quite obviously leaves the status of Jerusalem, indeed the shape and substance of a palestinian state entity, practically at the “mercy” of Israel, as it is phrased as ” the outcome of the negotiations”.
In these circumstances, not only I trust Israel to do the right thing by herself, but I fully agree with Scomo’s position.
This is not the case of “read my lips”, but ” read between the lines” or just simply THE lines.

I was referencing the Khartoum Resolution of September 1967, not your Mr Morrison’s birth date, and the quote should read:

“Why on earth would the PLO/PA agree to sit around the negotiating table with Israel when, citing two-state solution ideologies ad infinitum, players like Australia give the butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-their-mouths belligerents preciseley what THEY want: NO peace, NO talks, and NO inducement to recognise Israel whatsoever?

The dynamics cum logic cum strategies of actual/tahles politics derive from history, consider what brings people to conflicts and negotiations. All human behaviour derives from ………….previous acts.
The mechanics of what historic events evolved into, compel the engaged parties to deal/consider exclusively the “up-to-date “, evolved stage(s) of the said confrontations.
As I alluded before, the PLO of today has all but a few common features with the ’67-’68 one, as we would remember/describe it.
Israel on a completely different hand, has evolved into, once again, an entity almost distinct from the same ’67 “era”.
More so, the arab/islamic support for the same PLO/palestinians has “suffered” dramatic, almost indistinguishable shifts from some of their shape and substance of those gone days.
Here are some striking examples: where are and what happened to two of the former loudest, most aggressive, nastiest voices/advocates of the PLO cause, Saddam and Gaddafi !! Are their countries still causes for concern for Israel, once again, in real terms !! How likely are Egypt, Jordan and I would venture Siria to align with the PLO – that’s because you hinge your argument solely on PLO, but I will bring in hamas for “good” measure – in declaring/participating in a war on the Jewish State !!!
Otherwise, I remain the most passionate historian, waiting for an answer to my friendly questions……….

Excellent points, John. Indeed the same top leadership at the PLO and this means that the original charter of the establishment of a palestinian state has not been abandoned. What has changed, as I offered above, is the previous massive support from all those places/leaders no longer dependable.
As a result, the palestinians have become far more self-reliant, hence the emergence and dependability of hamas.
The apparent conflict PLO-hamas is just a natural , normal part of factional conflicts which one can see in almost ALL singular generic formations, political etc.
As the common aim remains the same, each faction carries out its mission in distinct ways and places. PLO all over legitimare places, such as UN etc. while hamas does its best to antagonise all and sundry, NOT however, the strong palestinian spirit of nationhood/statehood.
Under these circumstance and ostensive forces, however factional they may be, what are the chances of NOT arriving at the two state situation !!
Because it is a Sunday and also because I am, by far, the nicest, most lovable bloke, I will not go ( unless compelled ) into the massive demographic shifts in the area I would wholeheartedly call the entire Eretz Israel, parts of which the same palestininas claim to own, demographics well in favour of the same unworthy pretenders to MINE land.
If anyone can explain/demonstrate how can we practically make the palestinians abandon their statal claim, I’ll be the first to jojn/accept/promote that majestic plan.
Ball in your court…………..

Otto, if we agree to accept the argument that the PLO/PA/Hamas still operate from the core position of the historical Three No’s, the question becomes What possible chance is there of ever arriving at a two-state solution, not what are its chances of working.

If Arafat et al really wanted a state, if that was their true objective they could have a state on numerous occasions. They chose violence every time.

The fundamental problem isn’t statehood it’s the desire for peaceful coexistence. Only Israel wants peace and all talk of negotiated statehood is meaningless if the Palestinian Arabs seek Israel’s destruction, which, according to them, they do.

On the diplomatic level, insistence by third parties that Israel binds her hands to a failed and fraudulent two-state solution play into Arab hands and ensure continuation of the conflict, not its end.

World powers are being played here, not just Israel.

Only peace will bring about a cessation of hostilities and Israel should say Enough is enough of this chicanery!

It is debatable how much Israel might stand to lose in some future two-state or roadmap-to-peace gambit, but I would rather ask What would Israel actually gain in more of this same old, same old chicanery?

She needs to be tough with the Arabs and allow them make peace with her. Peace first, then maybe a negotiated autonomy for the so-called Palestinians.

It appears that Alex Ryvchin has not yet perceived that Arab (particularly “”Palestinian””) opinion overwhelmingly denies Israel’s legitimacy within any borders whatsoever.
It is one of those mysteries of nature that some people are capable of ignoring evidence that is as clear as the sun in the sky.

Leon, the salient feature of these encounters is not what the palestinians and their mates say/think about Israel’s legitimate place. Statements of this kind and, indeed, respective actions are not at all likely to change anything on the ground.
By far, the most relevant, is how Israel and Israel alone will deal with the palestinian claims/respective charter and, indeed, all diplomatic actions meant to compromise Israel.
The comments, public debates within ALL fora are, at best, secondary to the reality on the ground and, right there Israel is in a commanding position.
When time will by ripe and ready for the actual decision on the state desired by the palestininas, their desires shall be exclusively shaped and re-shaped in strict and exclusive accordance with what shall be satisfactory/convenient/ consistent with Israel’s ALL conditions/imperatives/existential priorities.
I think that we spend far too much time and comments of what the enemies of Israel say and how they go about achieving the impossible.
In the real scheme of things, the only serious problem for Israel is Iran and also the hizbolah as an immediate military issue.
At this juncture, Israel has managed brilliantly in excluding a whole raft of former inimical entities, entire regimes/states/armed structures etc.
PLO is not a “force” to present real challenges to any of Israel’s agencies and hamas is far a lesser concern than what they, hamas, would like others to believe.
Israel has managed to contain brilliantly a great deal of her internal and immediate security problems.
The latest attempts by hamas in Gaza to cause concern/trouble have been pathetical, complete failures and the casualties/damages hamas tried to cause Israel have been below the minimal.
All Jewish victims of terror and they have been victims lately, are a serious collective pain, but, if cynical for a moment, numbers have been historically at the lowest web.
We are not over the heartbreaking stages of our existence as Am Israel, but, at least, in a much better, safer place………………..

John you are right, a reliable, unconditional peace depends solely on the palestinian side and, implicitly, accepted exclusively by Israel, meaning on Israel’s terms. Once the other side – the pals. – evolve into an entity compatible with Israel’s conditions, evidently the respective palestinian state will be ALLOWED to be created/function.
In your last posting this seems to be your position as well, so, now we are on the same page…